Judgment
Darling held in the initial case there was an implied condition in the contract, using Taylor v. Caldwell and The Moorcock, and gave judgment for the defendant on both the claim and counter-claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintif's appeal.
Judge Williams framed the legal question in this case as whether there was an implied condition to the contract; i.e., whether or not, at the time the contract was made, the two parties knew that the reason behind the contract was for Henry to watch the coronation procession. The principle that an implied condition which ceases to exist voids the contract stems from the case of Taylor v Caldwell, which in turn was borrowed from Roman law. This principle was extended in later cases to situations in which an underlying condition that was essential to the performance of the contract (rather than simply being a necessary condition) ceases to exist.
Williams held that such a condition (in this case, the timely occurrence of the coronation proceeding) need not be explicitly mentioned in the contract itself, but rather may be inferred from the extrinsic circumstances surrounding the contract. Thus, the parol evidence rule was inapplicable here. First, he examined the substance of the contract, and then determined whether the contract was founded on the assumption of the existence of a particular state of affairs.
Williams then determined that given the affidavits of the parties, Krell had only granted Henry a license to use the rooms for a particular purpose (watching the coronation). He analogized the situation to one in which a man hired a taxicab to take him to a race. If the race did not occur on the particular day the passenger had thought, he would not be discharged from paying the driver; but unlike the situation in this case, the cab did not have any special qualification, as the room here did (its view of the street). Furthermore, the cancellation of the coronation could not reasonably have been anticipated by the parties at the time the contract was made.
Romer LJ said,
| “ | With some doubt I have also come to the conclusion that this case is governed by the principle on which Taylor v Caldwell was decided, and accordingly that the appeal must be dismissed. The doubt I have felt was whether the parties to the contract now before us could be said, under the circumstances, not to have had at all in their contemplation the risk that for some reason or other the coronation processions might not take place on the days fixed, or, if the processions took place, might not pass so as to be capable of being viewed from the rooms mentioned in the contract; and whether, under this contract, that risk was not undertaken by the defendant. But on the question of fact as to what was in the contemplation of the parties at the time, I do not think it right to differ from the conclusion arrived at by Vaughan Williams L.J., and (as I gather) also arrived at by my brother Stirling. This being so, I concur in the conclusions arrived at by Vaughan Williams L.J. in his judgment, and I do not desire to add anything to what he has said so fully and completely. | ” |
Stirling LJ concurred.
Read more about this topic: Krell V Henry
Famous quotes containing the word judgment:
“The impulse to perfection cannot exist where the definition of perfection is the arbitrary decision of authority. That which is born in loneliness and from the heart cannot be defended against the judgment of a committee of sycophants. The volatile essences which make literature cannot survive the clichés of a long series of story conferences.”
—Raymond Chandler (1888–1959)
“The heart may think it knows better: the senses know that absence blots people out. We really have no absent friends. The friend becomes a traitor by breaking, however unwillingly or sadly, out of our own zone: a hard judgment is passed on him, for all the pleas of the heart.”
—Elizabeth Bowen (1899–1973)
“Criticism is a study by which men grow important and formidable at very small expense. The power of invention has been conferred by nature upon few, and the labour of learning those sciences which may, by mere labour, be obtained, is too great to be willingly endured; but every man can exert some judgment as he has upon the works of others; and he whom nature has made weak, and idleness keeps ignorant, may yet support his vanity by the name of critic.”
—Samuel Johnson (1709–1784)